Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Nandita Dubey, J.
Pramod Kumar Lihkhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Revisions No. 3250 of 2015 and 197 of 2016 (Jabalpur): against theorder dated 2.12.2015passed by theII AdditionalSessions Judge, Dindori in Sessions Trial No. 80/2015; Decided on14.7.2021
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 397 -- revisional jurisdiction -- is limited --has to be exercised cautiously -- can only be invoked where decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidenceis ignored, or jurisdiction is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. [Para 9]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 228 -- framing of charge -- judge has undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether prima facie case has been made out -- material discloses grave suspicion against accused, which has not been properly explained -- Court fully justified in framing charge -- two views possible -- one giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion -- judge justified in discharging accused -- trial judge expected to exercise judicial mind todetermine whether case for trial has been made out -- should not act as mouth piece of prosecution -- Court expected to apply its mind to entire record and documents -- no meticulous examination of evidence needed for considering whether case would end inconviction or not -- however, Court is required to consider and apply its judicial mind to whether allegations taken as whole will prima facie constitute offence -- if so, whether continuation of proceedings is abuse of process of Court leading to injustice. (2019) 7 SCC 148, (2018) 13 SCC 455, (2013) 11 SCC 476 and CBI (2012) 9 SCC 512 referred to. [Paras 10 & 20]
(3) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 228 -- framing of charge -- principles reiterated. (2010) 9 SCC 368 followed. [Para 11]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 465 and 107 -- to bring home offence of forgery and abetment, prosecution required to establish from evidence/documents on record that accused instigated oraided in creating false document. [Para 16]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 409, 420, 471 r/w S. 120B -- to bring home charge of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating, it is necessary to establish agreement between parties for doing unlawful act in furtherance of which petitioner/accused person dishonestly induced person deceived to deliver property or valuable security, cheated and misappropriated that property to his own use. [Para 18]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.467, 468 r/w S. 109, 420, 471 r/w Ss. 120B and 201 -- essential ingredients conspicuously absent -- no factual foundation, no evidence that petitioners prepared forged cheques or intentionally aided or conspired with other co-accused inpreparing instrument -- there can be no element of cheating or entrustment once payment is released in account of account holders -- in absence of direct material, petitioners cannot be implicated as conspirators on mere suspicion and surmises -- they acted in their official capacity -- merely because petitioners overlooked or ignored RBI guideline/policy ordid not make proper enquiry, they cannot be saddled with criminal prosecution -- act attributed to petitioners, even if accepted to be true, could be described as act of negligence at most -- for this act of negligence, they may be liable for disciplinary proceedings, but cannotbe made criminally liable. [Paras 19 & 21]
¼1½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 397 & iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk & lhfer gksrh gS & lko/kkuhiwoZd Á;qDr dh tkuk gksrh gS & ogha vkJ; fy;k tk ldrk gS tgka vkf{kIr fofuf'p; fcYdqy xyr gS] fof/k ds mica/kksa dk vuqikyu ugha gS] vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ lk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha gS] rkfRod lk{; dh mis{kk dh xbZ gS vFkok vf/kdkfjrk eueku ls ;k foi;ZLrrk ls Á;qDr dh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 9½
¼2½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 227 rFkk 228 & vkjksi dh fojpuk & ÁFken`"V~;k ekeyk fl) fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha ;g irk yxkus ds lhfer Á;kstu ds fy, U;k;k/kh'k dks lk{; dk lw{e ijh{k.k vkSj rqyuk djus dh vlafnX/k 'kfDr gS & lkexzh ls vfHk;qDr ds fo#) xaHkhj lansg ÁdV] ftldk mfpr Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k & U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr & nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko & ,d ls] xaHkhj lansg ls lqfHkUu] dsoy lansg mitrk gS & U;k;k/kh'k }kjk vfHk;qDr dks mUeksfpr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr & fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ;g fofuf'pr djus ds fy, U;kf;d foosd Á;qDr fd;k tkuk visf{kr fd fopkj.k ds fy, ekeyk fl) fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha & vfHk;kstui{k ds ÁoDrk ds :i esa dk;Z ugha djuk pkfg, & U;k;ky; }kjk laiw.kZ vfHkys[k vkSj nLrkostksa ij /;ku fn;k tkuk visf{kr & ;g fopkj djus ds fy, lk{; dk vfrlw{e ijh{k.k vko';d ugha fd ekeys dk var nks"kflf) esa gksxk ;k ugha & rFkkfi] U;k;ky; }kjk bl ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vkSj U;kf;d foosd ykxw fd;k tkuk visf{kr fd vfHkdFkuksa dks lexz :i esa fy, tkus ij ÁFken`"V~;k vijk/k xfBr gksrk gS ;k ugha & ;fn ,slk gS rks D;k vU;k; djrs gq, dk;Zokgh tkjh j[kuk U;k;ky; dh ÁfØ;k dk nq#i;ksx gSA ¼2019½ 7 ,l lh lh 148] ¼2018½ 13 ,l lh lh 455] ¼2013½ 11 ,l lh lh 476 rFkk ¼2012½ 9 ,l lh lh 512 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 20½
¼3½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 227 rFkk 228 & vkjksi dh fojpuk & fl)karksa dh iqjko`fÙk dh xbZA ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 368 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 465 rFkk 107 & dwVjpuk vkSj nq"Ásj.k dk vijk/k lkfcr djus ds fy, vfHk;kstui{k }kjk lk{;@vfHkys[kxr nLrkostksa ls ;g LFkkfir fd;k tkuk vko';d fd vfHk;qDr us feF;k nLrkost cukus ds fy, mdlk;k ;k lgk;rk dhA ¼iSjk 16½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 409] 420] 471 lgifBr /kkjk 120[k & vkijkf/kd "kM~;a=] vkijkf/kd U;klHkax vkSj Ny dk vkjksi fl) djus ds fy, fof/kfo#) dk;Z djus gsrq i{kdkjksa ds e/; djkj LFkkfir djuk vko';d gS] ftls vxzlj djus ds fy, ;kph@vfHk;qDr O;fDr us Áoafpr O;fDr dks laifRr ;k ewY;oku ÁfrHkwfr ifjnRr djus ds fy, csbZekuhiwoZd mRÁsfjr fd;k] Ny fd;k rFkk Lo;a ds mi;ksx ds fy, ml laifRr dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;kA ¼iSjk 18½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 467] 468 lgifBr /kkjk 109] 420] 471 lgifBr /kkjk 120[k rFkk 201 & vfuok;Z la?kVdksa dk lqLi"V vHkko & dksbZ rF;kRed vk/kkj ugha] dksbZ lk{; ugha dk ;kphx.k us dwVjfpr pSd rS;kj fd, vFkok fy[kr rS;kj djus esa vU; lg&vfHkqDrksa dh lk'k; lgk;drk dh ;k "kM~;a= fd;k & [kkrsnkjksa ds [kkrs esa lank; dj fn, tkus ij Ny dk ;k lkSais tkus dk dksbZ vo;o ugha gks ldrk & ÁR;{k lkexzh ds vHkko esa ;kphx.k dks ek= lansg vkSj vVdyksa ds vk/kkj ij "kM~;a=dkfj;ksa ds :i esa vkfyIr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & mUgksaus viuh inh; {kerk esa dk;Z fd;k & ;kphx.k ij ek= blfy, vkijkf/kd vfHk;kstu yknk ugha tk ldrk fd mUgksaus Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds fn'kk&funsZ'kksa@uhfr dks vuns[kk fd;k ;k mldh mis{kk dh vFkok mfpr tkap ugha dh & ;kph ij vkjksfir ÑR; lR; eku Hkh fy;k tk, rks mldk fooj.k vfèkd&ls&vf/kd mis{kk ds ÑR; ds :i esa fd;k tk ldrk gS & mis{kk ds bl ÑR; ds fy, og vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds fy, nk;h gks ldrs gSa] ijarq vkijkfèkd nkf;Ro vf/kjksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 21½
ORDER
1. Both these Criminal Revisions have been filed against the order(s) dated 02.12.2015, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, framing charges under sections 467 read with 109, 420 read with 120-B, 468 read with 109, 471 read with 120-B, 409 read with 120-B and 201 of IPC against Pramod Kumar Lihkhar (petitioner in Cr.R. No.3250/2015) and under sections 467 read with 109, 420 read with 120-B, 468 read with 109, 471 read with 120-B and 409 read with 120-B of I.P.C. against Bhupendra Kumar Prabhat (petitioner in Cr.R. No.197/2016).
2. The brief facts of the case, as emerged from the material on record are that the First Information Report came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 8.9.2005, filed by Pramod Kumar Lihkhar (petitioner in Cr.R. No.3250/2015), Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Ajwar, district Dindori, wherein it was disclosed that Ramanand Jha and Suresh Chourasiya, who had their accounts with the Central Bank of India, committed fraud by depositing fictitious cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Dindori Branch in their accounts and later on withdrew the money. After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the account opening forms, withdrawal forms and deposit slips/receipts/counter slip received from the SBI, Dindori, from the office of Central Bank of India.
3. Upon completion of investigation, initially charge sheet was filed against four accused persons, namely, Abhinandan Soni, Yogesh Pandey, Suresh Chourasiya and Ramanand Jha. By way of additional charge sheet, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused, as they were respectively posted as Branch Manager and Cashier in the Central Bank of India, Branch Ajwar, district Dindori, at the relevant time. Upon committal, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori framed the charges against the accused persons, who pleaded non-guilty. The petitioners/accused persons have therefore filed the present revisions challenging the order dated 2.12.2015, framing the charges as aforementioned and continuation of proceedings.
4. Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused persons submitted that the charges are completely untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there was no material gathered by the prosecution. He further submitted that the account of Suresh Chourasiya and Ramanand Jha were opened after complying with the KYC norms. The cheques after being deposited by the aforesaid persons were sent for clearance to SBI, Dindori (local collection), on the same day. Referring to the provisions of clause 2.1, 2.2.1 and 3.1.1. of the Central Bank of India policy, which provides as under :--
2.1 Bank will extent the facility of immediate credit of local/outstation cheques upto to a maximum of Rs.15,000/-.
2.2.1 This facility will be extended to all individual depositors without making a distinction about their status, i.e., Savings Bank, Currentor Cash or Cash Credit account.
3.1 LOCAL CHEQUES
3.1.1. The customer’s account should be credited and they should be allowed use of funds latest on the third working day from the date of acceptance of the cheques at the counters; and the documents on record, it is urged that Munnalal Burman, Messenger of Central Bank of India deposited the cheques with SBI and obtained signed receipts in this regard, which were later on seized by the Investigating Officer and form a part of the charge sheet.
5. The contention of learned Senior Counsel is that as per Bank policy, the cheques sent for local collection/clearance, if not returned by the clearing Bank, the account of account holder/customer is then credited and he is allowed to use the funds on third working day. The cheques, after being deposited in SBI Dindori Branch, were not returned by the SBI rather the Central Bank of India received the counter foil/deposit receipt, which were initialed and had seal of SBI, with an end
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
A person cannot be charged with both cheating and criminal breach of trust for the same transaction; the prosecution must prove the specific elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges cannot be framed without material, and belated attempts to scuttle ongoing trials will not be entertained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
